Skip to Main Content

Psychological Science and Education
2021. Vol. 26, no. 6, 5–24
doi:10.17759/pse.2021260601
ISSN: 1814-2052 / 2311-7273 (online)

New Science Literacy: Problems and Difficulties of Formation

483

A.A. Margolis

PDF (RUS)
Online translation in english
GS
Information
in Google Scholar

Abstract

In a pandemic, science literacy is transformed from a subject of sociological research into a question of the survival of society itself. attitude of various groups and individuals to vaccination shows the real state of science literacy and reveals significant problems in its formation. The article examines the main stages in the development of the concept of natural science (science) literacy and the importance of critical science literacy in a stream containing conflicting scientific information and expert opinions. The article demonstrates the ineffectiveness of formation strategies without specially organized work on the development of initial pre-science ideas in children and adults.

General Information

Keywords: science literacy, natural science literacy, natural science education, STEM, pandemic, COVID-19, student initial input, naive theories

Journal rubric: Educational Psychology

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2021260601

Funding. The study was carried out within the framework of the state task of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation No.073-00041-21-05 dated 07/14/2021 “Formation of the psychological component in the methodological training of future teachers necessary for analyzing the causes of student mistakes in order to develop their subject conceptual thinking in the process of solving educational tasks”.

Received: 01.10.2021

Accepted:

For citation: Margolis A.A. New Science Literacy: Problems and Difficulties of Formation. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2021. Vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 5–24. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2021260601. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

References

  1. Briko N.I., Mindlina A.Ya., Galina N.P., Korshunov V.A., Polibin R.V.Priverzhennost’ razlichnykh grupp naseleniya immunoprofilaktike: kak izmenit’ situatsiyu? Fundamental’naya i klinicheskaya meditsina, 2019.Vol. 4, p.33.(In Russ.).
  2. Vygotskii L.S.K voprosu o razvitii nauchnykh ponyatii v shkol’nom vozraste: Predislovie.Zh.I.Shif.Razvitie nauchnykh ponyatii u shkol’nika.Moscow; Leningrad: Gos.ucheb.pedagog.izd-vo, 1935.80 p.(In Russ.).
  3. Vygotskii L.S.Razvitie zhiteiskikh i nauchnykh ponyatii v shkol’nom vozraste (stenogramma doklada v Leningradskom pedagogicheskom institute, 20.05.1933).Umstvennoe razvitie detei v protsesse obucheniya.Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 1935, pp.96—115.
  4. Kovaleva G.S.Materialy k zasedaniyu prezidiuma RAO 27 iyunya 2018 g.Vozmozhnye napravle-niya sovershenstvovaniya obshchego obrazovaniya dlya obespecheniya innovacionnogo razvitiya strany (po rezul'tatam mezhdunarodnyh issledovanii kachestva obshchego obrazovaniya) [Materials for the meeting of the RAO Presidium on June 27, 2018.Possible directions of improving general education to ensure the innovative development of the country (based on the results of international studies of the quality of general education)].Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya pedagogika [ Domestic and foreign pedagogy], 2018.Vol.2, no.5(55).
  5. Branscomb A.W.Knowing how to know.Science, Technology & Human Values, 1981.Vol.6, no.3, pp. 5—9.(In Russ.).
  6. Braund M.Critical STEM Literacy and the COVID-19 Pandemic.Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2021, pp. 1—18.DOI:10.1007/s42330-021-00150-w
  7. Carey S., Zaitchik D., Bascandziev I.Theories of development: In dialog with Jean Piaget.Developmental Review, 2015.Vol.38, pp.36—54.
  8. Chi M.T.H.Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift.International handbook of research on conceptual change.Routledge, 2009, pp.89—110.
  9. Durant J.R.What is scientific literacy.Science and culture in Europe, 1993, pp.129—137.
  10. Durant J.R., Evans G.A., Thomas G.P.The public understanding of science.Nature, 1989.Vol.340, no. 6228, pp.11—14.
  11. Feinstein N.Salvaging science literacy.Science education, 2011.Vol.95, no.1, pp.168—185.
  12. Hurd P.D.Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools.Educational leadership, 1958.Vol. 16, no.1, pp.13—16.
  13. Jenkins E.W.School science education: Towards a reconstruction.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1992.Vol.24, no.3, pp.229—246.
  14. Kyle Jr W.C.Scientific literacy: How many lost generations can we afford? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1995.Vol.32, no.9, pp.895—896.
  15. Larson H.J.et al.The state of vaccine confidence 2016: global insights through a 67-country survey. EBioMedicine, 2016.Vol.12, pp.295—301.DOI:10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.08.042
  16. Laugksch R.C.Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview.Science education, 2000.Vol.84, no.1, pp. 71—94.
  17. Lucas A.M.‘Info-tainment’ and informal sources for learning science.International Journal of Science Education, 1991.Vol.13, no.5, pp.495—504.
  18. Miller J.D.Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know.Public understanding of science, 2004.Vol.13, no.3, pp.273—294.
  19. Miller J.D.Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review.Daedalus, 1983, pp.29—48.
  20. Miller J.D., Pardo R.Civic scientific literacy and attitude to science and technology: A comparative analysis of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada.Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology, 2000, pp.81—129.
  21. National Science Board (US).Science & engineering indicators.National Science Board, 2000.
  22. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Frame-work: Science, Reading, Mathematics (Revised Edition).Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing, 2017.
  23. OECD.Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking: What it means in school.Paris: Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, 2019.DOI:10.1787/62212c37-en (Accessed 07.07.2020).
  24. Priest S.Critical science literacy: What citizens and journalists need to know to make sense of science.Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 2013.Vol. 33, no.5-6, pp.138—145.
  25. Roberts D.A.Scientific Literacy: Towards Balance in Setting Goals for School Science Programs.A Discussion Paper.Publications Office, Science Council of Canada, 100 Metcalfe St., Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5M1 (free), 1983, no.4, pp.8—18.DOI:10.23946/2500- 0764-2019-4-4-8-18
  26. Rubba P.A., Andersen H.O.Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge.Science education, 1978.Vol.62, no.4, pp.449—458.
  27. Shamos M.H.The myth of scientific literacy.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1995.
  28. Shamos M.H.Views of scientific literacy in elementary school science programs: Past, present, and future. Scientific Literacy, 1989, pp.109—127.
  29. Shen B.S.P.Views: Science Literacy: Public understanding of science is becoming vitally needed in developing and industrialized countries alike. American scientist, 1975.Vol.63, no.3, pp.265—268.
  30. Shortland M.Advocating science: Literacy and public understanding.Impact of Science on Society, 1988.Vol.38(4), pp.305—316.
  31. Vosniadou S., Vamvakoussi X., Skopeliti I.The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change.International handbook of research on conceptual change, 2008, pp.3—34.
  32. Walberg H.J.Scientific literacy and economic productivity in international perspective.Daedalus, 1983, pp.1—28.
  33. Wynne B.Knowledges in context.Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1991.Vol.16, no.1, pp. 111—121.

Information About the Authors

Arkadiy A. Margolis, PhD in Psychology, Rector, Professor, Chair of Pedagogical Psychology, Moscow State University of Psychology & Education, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9832-0122, e-mail: margolisaa@mgppu.ru

Metrics

Views

Total: 965
Previous month: 34
Current month: 9

Downloads

Total: 483
Previous month: 7
Current month: 3